sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 11, 5:09 am, "Vince Morgan"
wrote:

> > (I'm going back to the automobile repair shop now, where things seem
> > so much more "real" to me! Thanks again!)
>
> You think you've got a problem Ben. I don't even think the real question is
> "why", but "how". Why seems to imply motive, and math can't ascribe that.

Sure I've got a problem. I really can't see how mathematics is the
"ultimate" reality of physical science like everyone else in the field
(different use of the word) believes. See, even you are saying that
math is the "ultimate" reality! And if math can't answer "why" then
you say "why" is not a "real" question! But the truth is that if
"why" (which was a term brought up by Timo and not by me) implies
"motive" which "math can't ascribe" I'd counter with the statement
that "why" therefore implies causes and causality is a large part of
this discussion. That means that if physics can't answer "why" it
can't answer "causality". If it can't answer causality then Jefimenko
is a loon and all the discussions here are moot. Somehow I just can't
accept that. I have called those beliefs "dogma".

Heh, My karma ran over my dogma....